I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Which hotshot rookie would that be?

Ocon.

Not ready, give him 1 more year to see if he can beat Perez.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Which hotshot rookie would that be?

Ocon.

Not ready, give him 1 more year to see if he can beat Perez.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

Agreed that Ocon has possibilities as does Sainz who has been in play for much of this year.

OTOH I am sure that Mercedes is watching both Verstappen and Ricciardo whose contracts are up at the end of next year. That may be the strategy for signing Valtteri to a one year contract. Wolff may wait half a year and offer the best of the three drivers (in his estimation) a 2019 ride.

I would agree with mds that more of the front running teams should groom young drivers.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

Agreed that Ocon has possibilities as does Sainz who has been in play for much of this year.

OTOH I am sure that Mercedes is watching both Verstappen and Ricciardo whose contracts are up at the end of next year. That may be the strategy for signing Valtteri to a one year contract. Wolff may wait half a year and offer the best of the three drivers (in his estimation) a 2019 ride.

I would agree with mds that more of the front running teams should groom young drivers.

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Funny thing is if Bottas was driving for Merc in 2016 he would have finished or likely won ahead of Hamilton in China, Russia, Baku, Belgium, Singapore and Malaysia. Then if Hamilton got bad starts in Aus, Bahrain, Monza and Japan then again he picks up more points in a period of domination from Mercedes and the leading car wins.

Bottas performance level this year likely would have been enough to win the 2016 WDC given Hamilton’s reliability and starts. He would at very minimum win 7 races and take the WDC title fight to the final round.

That's what I think, that's why I feel it's a little harsh to make comparisons with Rosberg in totally different circumstances but Bottas pace on one tyre compound has been pretty poor. Rosberg beats Bottas for race pace but between 2014-16 this didn't matter much, Hamilton was generally always quicker on a Sunday but first corner wins the race.

I think this is why Rosberg retired, he actually got well beaten in 2016. He knows that better than anybody as he has seen all the data and knows how quick he was and his chances to beat Hamilton in the future.

He needed a perfect storm to beat Hamilton - Hamilton having terrible reliability and the FIA introducing a new clutch rule for 2016 which took Mercedes 10-12 races to work out how to launch the car properly and both drivers were affected, but Hamilton slightly more so. Without either, he doesn't win the WDC and with the starts sorted by the end of 2016 his chances to better Hamilton again had diminished even further.

They also, never raced each other on track all season bar one or two races and managed to collide in those. In every race Rosberg won (Singapore aside when Lewis was 3rd) Hamilton was lower than P5 after the first lap whilst Rosberg lead or in a few was in P2.

I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Which hotshot rookie would that be?

Ocon.

Not ready, give him 1 more year to see if he can beat Perez.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Which hotshot rookie would that be?

Ocon.

Not ready, give him 1 more year to see if he can beat Perez.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

The choice for McLaren was between Hamilton and Pedro de la Rosa, whilst for Vandoorne it was hardly a race winning car.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Benetton didn't have a race winning car.

All be it a bit lucky, the car Michael stepped into won earlier in the year.Benetton won races in 1991, 1990, 1989 and 1986 with multiple podiums too. By 1992, Michaels first full season. Brundle managed 9 top 4 finishes from 11 race finishes, which included 5 podiums.

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Benetton didn't have a race winning car.

Somebody should tell Piquet, then...

The previous year, they came 3rd in both Championships. at the time they signed Schumacher, they were just behind Ferrari in the standings. They were a front running team. Maybe not the best, but not winless, that's for sure

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Benetton didn't have a race winning car.

All be it a bit lucky, the car Michael stepped into won earlier in the year.Benetton won races in 1991, 1990, 1989 and 1986 with multiple podiums too. By 1992, Michaels first full season. Brundle managed 9 top 4 finishes from 11 race finishes, which included 5 podiums.

They were not a title contending team though, they just had sporadic wins.

Red Bull for instance never wanted to change their line up during their title years, now they are not in contention we have seen a few changes.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Who said he had to be better than Hamilton or even Bottas already?

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Benetton didn't have a race winning car.

Somebody should tell Piquet, then...

The previous year, they came 3rd in both Championships. at the time they signed Schumacher, they were just behind Ferrari in the standings. They were a front running team. Maybe not the best, but not winless, that's for sure

Yeah I wasn't being specific enough, they didn't have a title contending car.

The point would be to get him ready by learning from one of the best and within their own environment. I fully support it. Hamilton started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. Vandoorne started out, at McLaren, next to Alonso. I hate the mentality these days that rookies have to start somewhere at the back to "learn the trade".

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

This is akin to someone gambling with other people's money.

Who knows? Can you say for sure they wouldn't?

For that read my second sentence.

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Who said he had to be better than Hamilton or even Bottas already?

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

yes I'd agree and have stated as much before. If a driver is good enough for F1, I don't see why he has to serve out an apprenticeship in junior teams. Schumacher didn't. Hamilton didn't. If they're good, they will make it

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

This is akin to someone gambling with other people's money.

Who knows? Can you say for sure they wouldn't?

For that read my second sentence.

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

Yes you have and would Mercedes have won the WCC with Wehrlein on board instead of Bottas?

This is akin to someone gambling with other people's money.

Who knows? Can you say for sure they wouldn't?

For that read my second sentence.

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't contradict it. Point is that Bottas spent four years serving his apprenticeship before Mercedes called him, and would you say that paid off? What good did waiting do, exactly?

There are no guarantees either way. When even waiting still produces a bit of a gamble, then why not promote a talent if you really believe he has what it takes?

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't contradict it. Point is that Bottas spent four years serving his apprenticeship before Mercedes called him, and would you say that paid off? What good did waiting do, exactly?

There are no guarantees either way. When even waiting still produces a bit of a gamble, then why not promote a talent if you really believe he has what it takes?

Bottas wasn't a Mercedes apprentice, they put in the best driver that was available at that time because they got caught out by Rosberg's retirement.

Bottas is not good enough, what does that say of the drivers that Ferrari have employed these past 20 years?

For next year they still see Bottas as the best driver available, strange that you don't see the likes of Ocon being given the chance to prove himself at Force India, do Red Bull get this criticism for putting their drivers into the STR team first?

Both Ferrari and Red Bull have stuck with under performing drivers for years, Mercedes gives a driver a second year after winning races and getting poles securing the WCC and this becomes a problem.

Let's also not forget that Mercedes still have a stronger driver line up than Ferrari so there's no immediate need to replace him or gamble as you put it, you only gamble when you are behind, Red Bull may or may not be a threat.

Have either Ocon or Wehrlein shown they could do a better job than Bottas for next year, I would say not at all.

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't contradict it. Point is that Bottas spent four years serving his apprenticeship before Mercedes called him, and would you say that paid off? What good did waiting do, exactly?

There are no guarantees either way. When even waiting still produces a bit of a gamble, then why not promote a talent if you really believe he has what it takes?

Bottas wasn't a Mercedes apprentice, they put in the best driver that was available at that time because they got caught out by Rosberg's retirement.

Bottas is not good enough, what does that say of the drivers that Ferrari have employed these past 20 years?

For next year they still see Bottas as the best driver available, strange that you don't see the likes of Ocon being given the chance to prove himself at Force India, do Red Bull get this criticism for putting their drivers into the STR team first?

Both Ferrari and Red Bull have stuck with under performing drivers for years, Mercedes gives a driver a second year after winning races and getting poles securing the WCC and this becomes a problem.

Let's also not forget that Mercedes still have a stronger driver line up than Ferrari so there's no immediate need to replace him or gamble as you put it, you only gamble when you are behind, Red Bull may or may not be a threat.

Have either Ocon or Wehrlein shown they could do a better job than Bottas for next year, I would say not at all.

Once again you are deducing an awful lot from nothing at all.

You're seeing this as an attack on Mercedes, which is rather bizarre as the comments were pretty general. Why you feel the need to validate anything by pointing the finger at e.g. Red Bull only you will know.

The only point being made is that top teamS shouldn't be so afraid to put an up and coming driver in their car and that making them grind out years in lower teams isn't necessarily the best choice. It worked for other top drivers, examples already given, so teams should take encouragement from that

And you can read what you replied to. If he's good enough for F1, he should be good enough to drive for any team. Taking any driver is a gamble, to a certain extent. Has Bottas set the world alight? It's safe to say he hasn't performed to expectations. I don't see any reason why a team should procrastinate if they really believed a driver has potential. Verstappen only had one year before joining the big leagues, and who now thinks that was a mistake?

if they think Ocon (or whoever) is average, then they shouldn't hire him. But if they truly believe in their protegés, instead of simply paying lip service to it, then they should throw them in at the deep end.

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't contradict it. Point is that Bottas spent four years serving his apprenticeship before Mercedes called him, and would you say that paid off? What good did waiting do, exactly?

There are no guarantees either way. When even waiting still produces a bit of a gamble, then why not promote a talent if you really believe he has what it takes?

Bottas wasn't a Mercedes apprentice, they put in the best driver that was available at that time because they got caught out by Rosberg's retirement.

Bottas is not good enough, what does that say of the drivers that Ferrari have employed these past 20 years?

For next year they still see Bottas as the best driver available, strange that you don't see the likes of Ocon being given the chance to prove himself at Force India, do Red Bull get this criticism for putting their drivers into the STR team first?

Both Ferrari and Red Bull have stuck with under performing drivers for years, Mercedes gives a driver a second year after winning races and getting poles securing the WCC and this becomes a problem.

Let's also not forget that Mercedes still have a stronger driver line up than Ferrari so there's no immediate need to replace him or gamble as you put it, you only gamble when you are behind, Red Bull may or may not be a threat.

Have either Ocon or Wehrlein shown they could do a better job than Bottas for next year, I would say not at all.

Once again you are deducing an awful lot from nothing at all.

You're seeing this as an attack on Mercedes, which is rather bizarre as the comments were pretty general. Why you feel the need to validate anything by pointing the finger at e.g. Red Bull only you will know.

The only point being made is that top teamS shouldn't be so afraid to put an up and coming driver in their car and that making them grind out years in lower teams isn't necessarily the best choice. It worked for other top drivers, examples already given, so teams should take encouragement from that

In the real world what you suggest is fraught with failure, failure to win the titles you should have won all because it's about putting rookie drivers into the top cars like let's put Leclerc straight into the Ferrari does that actually make sense, let a driver learn the ropes during a title fight, every driver is the next Hamilton or Schumacher?

Being good enough to drive in F1 and being good enough to drive for a top team are two different things, if we judge Wehrlein by how he's performed this year against Ericsson then they did the right thing, no need to be thinking what if?

This also contradicts what you are saying that if you are good enough to drive in F1 then you are good enough to driver for any team, is Bottas no longer good enough to drive in F1?

Bottas didn't perform to expectations because he got beat quite easily by Hamilton, he still had wins and poles whilst like I said Wehrlein was a bit underwhelming this year so that is what it is.

Verstappen got dropped into a team that had no chance of challenging for titles.

You can't dictate how teams operate their junior driver programs, they have every right to believe that dropping young inexperienced drivers into the middle of title campaigns is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't contradict it. Point is that Bottas spent four years serving his apprenticeship before Mercedes called him, and would you say that paid off? What good did waiting do, exactly?

There are no guarantees either way. When even waiting still produces a bit of a gamble, then why not promote a talent if you really believe he has what it takes?

Bottas wasn't a Mercedes apprentice, they put in the best driver that was available at that time because they got caught out by Rosberg's retirement.

Bottas is not good enough, what does that say of the drivers that Ferrari have employed these past 20 years?

For next year they still see Bottas as the best driver available, strange that you don't see the likes of Ocon being given the chance to prove himself at Force India, do Red Bull get this criticism for putting their drivers into the STR team first?

Both Ferrari and Red Bull have stuck with under performing drivers for years, Mercedes gives a driver a second year after winning races and getting poles securing the WCC and this becomes a problem.

Let's also not forget that Mercedes still have a stronger driver line up than Ferrari so there's no immediate need to replace him or gamble as you put it, you only gamble when you are behind, Red Bull may or may not be a threat.

Have either Ocon or Wehrlein shown they could do a better job than Bottas for next year, I would say not at all.

Once again you are deducing an awful lot from nothing at all.

You're seeing this as an attack on Mercedes, which is rather bizarre as the comments were pretty general. Why you feel the need to validate anything by pointing the finger at e.g. Red Bull only you will know.

The only point being made is that top teamS shouldn't be so afraid to put an up and coming driver in their car and that making them grind out years in lower teams isn't necessarily the best choice. It worked for other top drivers, examples already given, so teams should take encouragement from that

In the real world what you suggest is fraught with failure, failure to win the titles you should have won all because it's about putting rookie drivers into the top cars like let's put Leclerc straight into the Ferrari does that actually make sense, let a driver learn the ropes during a title fight, every driver is the next Hamilton or Schumacher?

the goal is surely to find the next Hamilton or Schumacher?

Schumacher got put in the Benetton because they recognised his talent. Hamilton got put into the McLaren because they recognised his talent. Max was fought over and spent just over a year in the TR because they recognised his talent. So if drivers like e.g. Ocon have to wait longer then isn't that saying something about their lack of talent (I don't mean no talent at all, but not that something extra that marks them out as a superstar)? If teams aren't willing to take a punt on them then generally it means they're just another driver.

And I'd suggest that most drivers out there could perform (almost) as well as Bottas or Kimi are doing in their respective cars, because I don't think much separates most of the drivers. The ones that could do better are the (potential) superstars. So ultimately I'm not convinced putting a driver they think has got what it takes into a top team from the get go is really that high a risk. If they aren't a superstar, they'll likely do not much worse than the other non-superstars. But if they are a superstar, then it may pay off handsomely.

I'm not suggesting every driver gets a chance at a Ferrari or a Mercedes. But if these teams really have faith in their junior programs (and they should have enough data to tell them something), then they should have the courage of their convictions to do what McLaren did with Hamilton (and Vandoorne).

I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Well, Verstappen is out of the equation as he has extended his contract already (until the end of 2020 if memory serves).

edit: I said Ocon because he seemed like the most logical, as a member of the Mercedes development programme

Yes you are right Max did sign.

Lewis and Daniel could be a fun team to watch as two free spirits.

I still remember how Michael Schumacher was snapped up pretty quickly by Flavio and Benetton after one race with Jordan. Shows what teams can do when they go out and scrounge raw talent and don't cherry pick from the "also ran teams".

Benetton didn't have a race winning car.

All be it a bit lucky, the car Michael stepped into won earlier in the year.Benetton won races in 1991, 1990, 1989 and 1986 with multiple podiums too. By 1992, Michaels first full season. Brundle managed 9 top 4 finishes from 11 race finishes, which included 5 podiums.

They were not a title contending team though, they just had sporadic wins.

Red Bull for instance never wanted to change their line up during their title years, now they are not in contention we have seen a few changes.

We've seen 3 lineup changes at Red Bull, 2 of which were enforced by circumstances outwith the team's control.

I like Valtteri and think he is a decent driver, but I don't know why Mercedes didn't use this year to pound up a hotshot rookie for 2018. They need a driver who can learn from Lewis and be ready to help out when Lewis's numbers begin to taper off.

Which hotshot rookie would that be?

The one Mercedes loaned to Force India this season.

This has already been discussed but I will not get uppity with you like someone did with me for not reading all the posts before you posted.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Who said he had to be better than Hamilton or even Bottas already?

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Who said he had to be better than Hamilton or even Bottas already?

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

As for Ocon being in the 4th best car is hardly starting at the back so why the rush, if he can't beat Perez then it's hardly going to beat Hamilton so he will be at best no better than Bottas who actually beat his teammates before getting the Mercedes seat.

Who said he had to be better than Hamilton or even Bottas already?

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

Either way, we've seen rookies or near rookies drive for top teams throughout history. Maybe you didn't like it, but I did, and I would like teams to promote their juniors faster when occasion arises.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

I'm sorry, when did I champion Wehrlein?

After Rosberg retired you said that Mercedes should have picked Wehrlein over Bottas with him being a Mercedes junior driver.

I look at it through the eyes of the top teams, why do they need to gamble?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

I'm sorry, when did I champion Wehrlein?

After Rosberg retired you said that Mercedes should have picked Wehrlein over Bottas with him being a Mercedes junior driver.

IIRC I said if they had faith in him they should put their money where their mouth is and promote him, not make him serve out an apprenticeship. Not quite sure that adds up to championing him?

What did Bottas prove? Being able to beat Massa, what's that worth in this day and age? Is that really worth more than Ocon drawing level with Perez in the second half of this year, with hardly a season under his belt?

Now if you're going to continue rejecting other examples because it wasn't fully comparable - Gilles Villeneuve was put in a Ferrari after just one race in a McLaren - and Ferrari delivered the champion and became constructor's champions that year, Villeneuve was retained for the next year. So VERY much a front running team.More examples? Jacques Villeneuve. Damon Hill. David Coulthard. All drivers that spent 1 season or even less in other teams before they got a seat in a front-running team (i.e. one that actually won titles the year before, or the year they got promoted even). And there are much more examples to be found throughout F1's history.

And it's not about "gambling". Firstly because they should have a pretty good idea of Ocon's potential by now. Secondly because immersing your protégé in your own environment would allow him to learn from the best, in the best environment. To get him fully installed and acquainted with team personnel, procedures, car characteristics, etc, ready for when the main driver eventually and inevitably quits. Even if (and that's a big IF) you would lose out just a bit in the short term, you stand to gain a lot in the medium (to long) term.

Lastly, it's not like Ferrari have a second driver that hauls in all possible points. Which, in turn, would also be an argument for Ferrari to bring Leclerc in on the short term just as well.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

I'm sorry, when did I champion Wehrlein?

After Rosberg retired you said that Mercedes should have picked Wehrlein over Bottas with him being a Mercedes junior driver.

IIRC I said if they had faith in him they should put their money where their mouth is and promote him, not make him serve out an apprenticeship. Not quite sure that adds up to championing him?

The apprenticeship as you call it is proving that you are good enough to step up, to put Wehrlein in the middle of a tight title campaign would have been a big gamble and may not have paid off as well as it did for Mercedes?

Another season on and Wehrlein for me has still to prove himself, if he can't stand out against Ericsson how does he get the Mercedes drive because as a Mercedes junior driver he's entitled to it, and lets not forget he has no record to speak of in single seaters.

Gilles Villenueve wasn't ready though, he finished 9th in the WDC and lost Ferrari any chance of retaining the WCC so they basically had to right off 1 season, I don't think Mercedes would be prepared to do likewise, this might have happened this season if they had taken on Wehrlein who was being championed by Zoue, Wehrlein who went life and death with Ericsson this season who many rate as one of the worse drivers in F1.

When Bottas beat Massa that was his second season in F1 so he didn't have that much more experience than Ocon who after all is getting beat by Perez, Perez who isn't rated high enough to land a top drive.

Regarding Williams you could argue that having weak drivers cost them the titles in 1995 and then a combination of Schumacher going to a much weaker Ferrari team and a dominant Williams car made it easy for their drivers, Mercedes no longer have a dominant car.

I'm sorry, when did I champion Wehrlein?

After Rosberg retired you said that Mercedes should have picked Wehrlein over Bottas with him being a Mercedes junior driver.

IIRC I said if they had faith in him they should put their money where their mouth is and promote him, not make him serve out an apprenticeship. Not quite sure that adds up to championing him?

The apprenticeship as you call it is proving that you are good enough to step up, to put Wehrlein in the middle of a tight title campaign would have been a big gamble and may not have paid off as well as it did for Mercedes?

Another season on and Wehrlein for me has still to prove himself, if he can't stand out against Ericsson how does he get the Mercedes drive because as a Mercedes junior driver he's entitled to it, and lets not forget he has no record to speak of in single seaters.

So you admit I wasn't championing him, then? I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make things up about me in future.

The point I made then, and still do now, is that if they feel a driver has star potential then there's no need to wait. History is littered with examples of top drivers entering at the deep end and making a success of it. Waiting tells me that they don't actually have faith in that driver, which means that they will probably never end up in the team anyway and they need to find a better example in their junior program (or externally, of course).

Bottas hasn't exactly been an unqualified success, which just proves that even waiting doesn't bring any guarantees. He's hardly a rookie, is he? Althoug to be fair he's bagged more points than Kimi has to help secure the WCC for Mercedes. But are we that sure that e.g. Wehlein or other rookie driver wouldn't have done any better than him? He's definitely not Hamilton-successor material, going on what we've seen so far

Ocon is not looking too bad against Perez at the moment. I think Bottas is probably lucky that the Red Bull pair were looking likely to come available after next year, so he got a one year extension to give Mercedes options for 2019. But otherwise I'm not sure I could say with any conviction that Bottas would be a better choice than e.g. Ocon. And Kimi has pretty much proven that he's not a safe bet for WCC points, so what exactly is he there for when they have e.g. Leclerc waiting in the wings? I don't get the caution teams like Mercedes and Ferrari show and I don't think they benefit from it

Coulthard debuted at Williams, they did win the WCC that year. Already wondering what's wrong with this example.

Well, it wasn't exactly Williams' first choice. It wouldn't have happened if Senna had still been alive, that's for sure. I suppose it worked out, but I think it also qualifies as a special circumstance (and then they also brought Mansell in to finish out the season, so there's that).

Coulthard debuted at Williams, they did win the WCC that year. Already wondering what's wrong with this example.

Well, it wasn't exactly Williams' first choice. It wouldn't have happened if Senna had still been alive, that's for sure. I suppose it worked out, but I think it also qualifies as a special circumstance (and then they also brought Mansell in to finish out the season, so there's that).

Sure, they were special circumstances. But they did it, and given the qualities of the car I can't imagine they didn't have other options available.

I don't see the need to pick any example apart to differentiate it from the choice Mercedes had for next year. No two situations are ever exactly alike. The overall, and main, point is that in the past we saw rookies or near rookies debut at front-running teams, but somewhere in the recent past it has somehow become mandatory for young drivers to do an apprenticeship somewhere else, and I do not like that.

As I said Ocon could further learn from one of the greatest at Mercedes, in their own environment, and it would benefit both in the medium to long term. That's all I'm saying.

Coulthard debuted at Williams, they did win the WCC that year. Already wondering what's wrong with this example.

Well, it wasn't exactly Williams' first choice. It wouldn't have happened if Senna had still been alive, that's for sure. I suppose it worked out, but I think it also qualifies as a special circumstance (and then they also brought Mansell in to finish out the season, so there's that).

Sure, they were special circumstances. But they did it, and given the qualities of the car I can't imagine they didn't have other options available.

I don't see the need to pick any example apart to differentiate it from the choice Mercedes had for next year. No two situations are ever exactly alike. The overall, and main, point is that in the past we saw rookies or near rookies debut at front-running teams, but somewhere in the recent past it has somehow become mandatory for young drivers to do an apprenticeship somewhere else, and I do not like that.

As I said Ocon could further learn from one of the greatest at Mercedes, in their own environment, and it would benefit both in the medium to long term. That's all I'm saying.